Pilman v. New York City Housing Authority
Citation | 214 F.Supp.2d 325 |
Decision Date | 25 February 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 96 Civ.3893(RMB)(RLE).,96 Civ.3893(RMB)(RLE). |
Parties | Toby PILMAN, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Toby Pilman, New York City, pro se.
Mark F. Walter, of counsel, New York City Housing Authority, New York City, for defendant.
Pro se Plaintiff Toby Pilman ("Plaintiff" or "Pilman") commenced two civil rights actions against her former employer, the New York City Housing Authority ("Defendant" or the "Authority"). The first suit, filed August 11, 1994, alleged discrimination based on race and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. ("Title VII") and 42 U.S.C § 1981. The second suit, filed May 23, 1996, alleged discrimination based on disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. (the "ADA"), and retaliation in violation of Title VII. By Order dated September 26, 2000, the Court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment on the racial discrimination and two retaliation claims and denied Defendant's motion for summary judgment on the disability discrimination claim.
On March 29, 2001, the Authority filed the present motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Fed. R.Civ.P.") 12(b)(6), 37(b)(2)(C), and 41(b).1 United States Magistrate Judge Ronald L Ellis, to whom the matter was referred, issued a Report and Recommendation, dated July 23, 2001 ("Report"), in which he recommends that Defendant's motion to dismiss be granted. See Report at 2 () (emphasis in original). On September 10, 2001, Plaintiff filed a "Motion to Oppose Report and Recommendation for Summary Judgment/96 Civ. 3893 from Hon. Ronald L. Ellis, U.S.M.J.," which the Court is treating as objections pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a) ("Objections").
For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion is granted.
A district judge reviewing a magistrate judge's report may adopt those portions of the report to which no "specific written objection" is made, so long as those sections are neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985); Greene v. WCI Holdings Corp., 956 F.Supp. 509, 513 (S.D.N.Y.1997), aff'd, 136 F.3d 313 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 983, 119 S.Ct. 448, 142 L.Ed.2d 402 (1998). The Court must conduct a de novo review of those findings to which a party has made a timely written objection, but is not required to conduct a de novo hearing. See, e.g., East River Savings Bank v. Sec'y of Hous. and Urban Dev., 702 F.Supp. 448, 453 (S.D.N.Y.1988). Thereafter, the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. See DeLuca v. Lord, 858 F.Supp. 1330, 1345 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), aff'd. 77 F.3d 578 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 824, 117 S.Ct. 83, 136 L.Ed.2d 40 (1996).
In addition, the Court must liberally construe the claims of a pro se litigant. See, e.g., Soto v. Walker, 44 F.3d 169, 173 (2d Cir.1995) ( ); Dais v. Lane Bryant, Inc., 203 F.R.D. 115, 117 (S.D.N.Y.2001) ( ).
The Court has reviewed the Objections and the documents attached thereto, along with the record herein and applicable legal authorities, and has conducted a de novo review. Magistrate Judge Ellis correctly concluded that Plaintiff's disability discrimination claim is untimely. See Report at 7 ().2
The ADA incorporates by reference the limitations period set forth in Title VII (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1)) for employment discrimination actions. See 42 U.S.C. § 12117. In New York, the limitations period for filing a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") is 300 days. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1). Allegedly discriminatory incidents not timely presented to the EEOC will be timebarred in a plaintiff's subsequent federal action. See Quinn v. Green Tree Credit Corp., 159 F.3d 759, 765 (2d Cir.1998) (); Miller v. Int'l Tel. and Tel. Corp., 755 F.2d 20, 24 (2d Cir.1985) ().
Plaintiff's charge of disability discrimination was filed with the EEOC on October 10, 1995 (the "Charge"). Plaintiff is, therefore, barred from asserting any claims of discriminatory conduct which occurred before December 14, 1994, i.e., 300 days before she filed the Charge. Because the Authority notified Plaintiff by letter, dated September 2, 1994, that her employment had been terminated, Plaintiff's claim, which is based on allegations of discriminatory discharge occurring more than 90 days before December 14, 1994, is untimely.
Nor is Plaintiff's claim saved under the "continuing violation" doctrine. See Harris v. City of New York, 186 F.3d 243, 248 (2d Cir.1999) () (citations omitted). Judge Ellis correctly found that Plaintiff's reference to February 22, 1995 (the date of a psychiatric report determining that Plaintiff was unfit to resume her duties) did not establish a continuing violation extending the limitations period. See Report at 6-7 (); Flaherty v. Metromail Corp., 235 F.3d 133, 137 (2d Cir.2000) (); Cavallaro v. Corning, Inc., 93 F.Supp.2d 334, 339 (W.D.N.Y.2000) () .
Defendant has also sought dismissal of Plaintiff's disability discrimination claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(C) and 41(b), for Plaintiff's failure to comply with discovery orders and failure to prosecute her case. As detailed in Defendant's moving papers and in the Report, Plaintiff has demonstrated an unfortunate unwillingness and/or inability to comply with discovery requests, even when directed to do so. See Report at 8 () . Plaintiff initially ignored Judge Ellis's discovery directive. Id. () And, Plaintiff has (still) not appeared for her deposition, noticed for January 31, 2001.3 See Order dated Jan. 10, 2001(RLE) ( ).
The Court adopts the Report in all material respects and incorporates it herein by reference. For the reasons stated herein and therein, Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted.
The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close this case.
Pro se plaintiff Toby Pilman ("Pilman") brought these two actions against her former employer, defendant New York City Housing Authority ("NYCHA"), alleging various civil rights violations. Pilman filed the first complaint on August 11, 1994, claiming discrimination based on race as well as retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. ("Title VII") and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Pilman filed a second complaint on May 23, 1996, claiming discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. ("ADA") and retaliation in violation of Title VII.
On September 26, 2000, District Judge Richard M. Berman granted NYCHA's motion for summary judgment with respect to Pilman's racial...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lavender v. Verizon N.Y. Inc.
... 1 EILEEN S. LAVENDER, Plaintiff, v. VERIZON NEW YORK INC., MICHAEL DZUGAN, PETER ALAGNA, KEN MONFREDO, FIOS ... Manager in Garden City, to determine whether Page could ... accommodate ... § 2000e-5(e)); ... see also Pilman v. N.Y. City Hous. Auth. , 214 ... F.Supp.2d 325, 327 ... ...
-
Pullman v. Alpha Media Publ'g, Inc.
...arguments that they suggest. See, e.g., Ahlers v. Rabinowitz, 684 F.3d 53, 60 (2d Cir. 2012); Pilman v. New York City Housing Authority, 214 F. Supp. 2d 325, 327 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); see also; Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) (holding pro se pleadings to less stringent standard tha......
-
Pilman v. New York City Housing Authority, s. 02-7402, 02-7404.
...District Court (Richard M. Berman, Judge) adopted the Report and Recommendation on February 25, 2002. See Pilman v. New York Housing Authority, 214 F. Supp. 2d 325 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). Final judgment was entered on March 1, 2002. On March 11, 2002, Pilman filed a notice of We hold that the Dist......